Transcript Bad Faith Claims - Lobman Carnahan Batt Angelle

James P. Nader
Lobman, Carnahan, Batt, Angelle, & Nader
Attorneys At Law
400 Poydras Street, Suite 2300
New Orleans, LA 70130-3425
Telephone (504) 586-9292
Facsmile (504) 586-1290
Email: [email protected]
www.lcba-law.com
Reasons for Bad Faith Laws
 Contractual reason:
 Implied C0venant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing

Every contract imposes upon each party a duty of good
faith and fair dealing in its performance and its
enforcement.
Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 205 (1981)

The implied duty of good faith and fair dealing in every
insurance policy fundamentally requires that the
insurer to do nothing to injure the insured’s right to
receive benefits due under its policy.
Richmond, Advice of Counsel and Insurance Bad Faith, 73 Miss. L.J. 95 (Fall
2003).
Reason for Bad Faith Laws cont.
 Public Policy reason:
 Superior Bargaining Power of Insurers


Factors showing superior bargaining
This makes insurance contracts particularly susceptible to
public policy considerations.
Standards for Limiting the Tort of Bad Faith Breach of Contract, 16 U.S.F.L.
Rev. 187 (1982).

This public policy extends damages for Bad Faith beyond mere
contractual damages and into the realm of tort damages.
Hunter v. Up-Right, Inc., P 2d 88 (Cal. 1993).
Definition of “Bad Faith”
 The phrase “bad faith” is one of the most often
repeated phrases in the law, but may also be one of the
least understood.
 “Bad faith” may connote moral culpability or fault, but
it is unclear from cases or commentary to what degree
bad faith actually indicates some evil intent or moral
failing.
Common Elements of Bad Faith
1. Wrongful failure to pay a claim or undisputed
amount
2. Failure to investigate or investigate timely
3. Failure to defend vs. indemnify
4. Failure to promptly adjust the claim per legal
timeline
Florida
History:
 Florida has recognized third-party bad faith actions at
common law since 1938
 First-party bad faith actions were recognized with the
enactment of F.S.A. § 624.155 in 1982
 Now, first-party and third-party bad faith claims fall
under the same statutes and contain the same causes
of action.
F.S.A.§ 624.155
624.155 Civil remedy (Chapter 625 of Insurance
Code)—
(1) Any person may bring a civil action against an
insurer when such person is damaged:
(a) By a violation of any of the following provisions
by the insurer:
1. Section 626.9541(1)(i), (o), or (x);
2. Section 626.9551;
3. Section 626.9705;
4. Section 626.9706;
5. Section 626.9707; or
6. Section 627.7283.
2. Making claims payments to insureds or
beneficiaries not accompanied by a statement setting
forth the coverage under which payments are being
made; or
3. Except as to liability coverages, failing to
promptly settle claims, when the obligation to
settle a claim has become reasonably clear, under one
portion of the insurance policy coverage in order to
influence settlements under other portions of the
insurance policy coverage. Notwithstanding the
provisions of the above to the contrary, a person
pursuing a remedy under this section need not prove
that such act was committed or performed with such
frequency as to indicate a general business practice.
(b) By the commission of any of the following acts by ….
the insurer:
Upon adverse adjudication at trial or upon appeal,
1. Not attempting in good faith to settle claims (4)
the
authorized insurer shall be liable for damages,
when, under all the circumstances, it could and together
with court costs and reasonable attorney's
should have done so, had it acted fairly and
honestly toward its insured and with due regard fees incurred by the plaintiff.
for her or his interests;
Florida law – what to know
 In Florida, the duty of an insurer is described as the “duty to use the same degree
of care and diligence as a person of ordinary care and prudence should
exercise in the management of his own business.” Boston Old Colony Ins. Co. v.
Gutierrez, 386 So. 2d 783, 785 (Fla. 1980).
 This is a “fiduciary relationship” b/w the insurer and insured, placing the insured with a high burden.
Allstate Indem. Co. v. Ruiz, 899 So. 2d 1121, 1125 (Fla. 2005).
 624.155 provides that an insured cannot bring a bad faith claim if, “within 60
days after filing notice, the damages are paid or the circumstances giving rise to
the violation are corrected.” Such written notice is required of any party
attempting to bring a bad faith claim against an insured. F.S.A.§ 624.155.

After a debate on whether the insured must pay the claim amount or the claim amount plus bad faith
damages within this time period, the Florida Supreme Court held, in Talat Enterprises, Inc. v. Aetna Cas.
And Sur. Co., that the 60 day period, if complied with, precludes any recovery for bad faith damages. 753
So. 2d 1278 (La. 2000).
 Attack on law in Florida in that there is no reciprocal duty of good faith on part
of the insured/claimant, resulting in a “bad faith set-up.”
Baton v. Transamerica Ins. Co., 584 F. 2d 907, 914 (9th Cir. 1978)); Peraza v. Robles, 983 So. 2d 1189, 1192 (Fla. 3d
D.C.A. 2008)
Georgia
 Current elements to show bad faith:
 The claim is covered under the policy;
 Demand for payment made within 60 days prior to
filing suit; and
 Insurer’s failure to pay motivated by bad faith.
Lavoi Corp., Inc. v. Nat'l Fire Ins. of Hartford, 666 S.E.2d 387 (Ga. App. 2008)
 As occurs on national level, Georgia does not
adequately define “bad faith.”
 Georgia bad faith law tends toward the vague and
broad, as opposed to other state’s detailed laws
Ga. Code. Ann. § 33-4-6
§ 33-4-6. Liability of insurer for damages and attorney's fees on bad faith refusal to pay claims
(a) In the event of a loss which is covered by a policy of insurance and the refusal of the insurer to
pay the same within 60 days after a demand has been made by the holder of the policy and a
finding has been made that such refusal was in bad faith, the insurer shall be liable to pay such
holder, in addition to the loss, not more than 50 percent of the liability of the insurer for the loss or $
5,000.00, whichever is greater, and all reasonable attorney's fees for the prosecution of the action
against the insurer. The action for bad faith shall not be abated by payment after the 60 day period
nor shall the testimony or opinion of an expert witness be the sole basis for a summary judgment or
directed verdict on the issue of bad faith. The amount of any reasonable attorney's fees shall be
determined by the trial jury and shall be included in any judgment which is rendered in the action;
provided, however, the attorney's fees shall be fixed on the basis of competent expert evidence as to
the reasonable value of the services based on the time spent and legal and factual issues involved in
accordance with prevailing fees in the locality where the action is pending; provided, further, the
trial court shall have the discretion, if it finds the jury verdict fixing attorney's fees to be greatly
excessive or inadequate, to review and amend the portion of the verdict fixing attorney's fees
without the necessity of disapproving the entire verdict. The limitations contained in this Code
section in reference to the amount of attorney's fees are not controlling as to the fees which may be
agreed upon by the plaintiff and the plaintiff's attorney for the services of the attorney in the action
against the insurer.
(b) In any action brought pursuant to subsection (a) of this Code section, and within 20 days of
bringing such action, the plaintiff shall, in addition to service of process in accordance with Code
Section 9-11-4, mail to the Commissioner of Insurance and the consumers' insurance advocate a
copy of the demand and complaint by first-class mail. Failure to comply with this subsection may be
cured by delivering same.
Georgia law – what to know
 Need a “reasonable and probable cause for defending the
claim”
Colonial Life & Acc. Ins. Co. v. Donaldson, 322 S.E. 2d 510 (Ga. App. 1984)
 Where no evidence of bad faith or where issue of liability is
close, court should not allow imposition of bad faith penalties
Mitchell v. Globe Life and Acc. Ins. Co., 548 F. Supp.2d 1385 (N.D. Ga. 2007)
 More detailed statute in respect to bad faith refusal to pay
motor vehicle coverage claims. Ga. Code Ann., § 33-4-7.
 Safe harbor in Georgia for situation where Plaintiff makes a
settlement offer containing a condition beyond control of
insurer.
Cotton States Mut. Ins. Co. v. Brightman, 580 S.E.2d 519 (Ga. 2003)
 Insurance adjusters are not liable for failure to settle a claim
with an insured in the absence of a contractual relationship.
Moss v. Cincinnati Ins. Co., 154 Ga. App. 165 (Ga. App. 1980).
Louisiana Bad Faith Law
Elements of insured’s claim of bad faith:
1. That the insurer received a satisfactory proof of loss;
2. That the insurer failed to pay the claim within the applicable period; AND
3. That the insurer’s failure to pay was arbitrary, capricious, or without probable
cause.
Boudreaux v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 896 So. 2d 230 (La. App. 4 Cir. 2005)
Insurer’s defenses:
1. Underlying claim invalid (e.g. prescribed)
Hampton v. Audubon Ins. Co., 948 So. 2d 332 (La. App. 2d Cir. 2007)
2. Refusal to pay has reasonable basis
Kottle v. Provident Life and Acc. Ins. Co., 775 So. 2d 64 (La. App. 2 Cir. 2000), writ denied 790 So.2d 635 (La.
2001)
3. No satisfactory proof of loss
Reed v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 857 So. 2d 1012, 1021 (La. 2003)
4. Insured withholds necessary information
Boudreaux v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 896 So. 2d 230, 234 (La. App. 4 Cir. 2005)
La. R.S. 22:1892
La. R.S. 22:1892 (formerly 22:658): Payment and adjustment of
claims, policies other than life and health and accident; personal
vehicle damage claims; extension of time to respond to claims
during emergency or disaster; penalties; arson-related claims
suspension
A. (1) All insurers issuing any type of contract, other than those
specified in R.S. 22:1811, 1821, and Chapter 10 of Title 23 of the
Louisiana Revised Statutes of 1950, shall pay the amount of any
claim due any insured within thirty days after receipt of
satisfactory proofs of loss from the insured or any party in
interest. The insurer shall notify the insurance producer of record
of all such payments for property damage claims made in
accordance with this Paragraph.
(2) All insurers issuing any type of contract, other than those
specified in R.S. 22:1811, R.S. 22:1821, and Chapter 10 of Title 23 of
the Louisiana Revised Statutes of 1950, shall pay the amount of any
third party property damage claim and of any reasonable medical
expenses claim due any bona fide third party claimant within thirty
days after written agreement of settlement of the claim from any
third party claimant.
(3) Except in the case of catastrophic loss, the insurer shall initiate
loss adjustment of a property damage claim and of a claim for
reasonable medical expenses within fourteen days after
notification of loss by the claimant. In the case of catastrophic
loss, the insurer shall initiate loss adjustment of a property damage
claim within thirty days after notification of loss by the claimant
except that the commissioner may promulgate a rule for extending
the time period for initiating a loss adjustment for damages arising
from a presidentially declared emergency or disaster or a
gubernatorially declared emergency or disaster up to an additional
thirty days. Thereafter, only one additional extension of the period
of time for initiating a loss adjustment may be allowed and must be
approved by the Senate Committee on Insurance and the House
Committee on Insurance, voting separately. Failure to comply with
the provisions of this Paragraph shall subject the insurer to the
penalties provided in R.S. 22:1973.
(4) All insurers shall make a written offer to settle any property
damage claim, including a third-party claim, within thirty
days after receipt of satisfactory proofs of loss of that claim.
B. (1) Failure to make such payment within thirty days after receipt
of such satisfactory written proofs and demand therefor or failure
to make a written offer to settle any property damage claim,
including a third-party claim, within thirty days after receipt of
satisfactory proofs of loss of that claim, as provided in Paragraphs
(A)(1) and (4), respectively, or failure to make such payment within
thirty days after written agreement or settlement as provided in
Paragraph (A)(2), when such failure is found to be arbitrary,
capricious, or without probable cause, shall subject the insurer
to a penalty, in addition to the amount of the loss, of fifty
percent damages on the amount found to be due from the
insurer to the insured, or one thousand dollars, whichever is
greater, payable to the insured, or to any of said employees, or in
the event a partial payment or tender has been made, fifty percent
of the difference between the amount paid or tendered and the
amount found to be due as well as reasonable attorney fees and
costs. Such penalties, if awarded, shall not be used by the insurer in
computing either past or prospective loss experience for the
purpose of setting rates or making rate filings.
La. R.S. 22:1973
La. R.S. 22:1973 (formerly 22:1220): Good faith duty; claims
settlement practices; cause of action; penalties
insured by the contract within sixty days after receipt of
satisfactory proof of loss from the claimant when such failure is
A. An insurer, including but not limited to a foreign line and arbitrary, capricious, or without probable cause.
(6) Failing to pay claims pursuant to R.S. 22:1893 when such
surplus line insurer, owes to his insured a duty of good faith
and fair dealing. The insurer has an affirmative duty to adjust failure is arbitrary, capricious, or without probable cause.
claims fairly and promptly and to make a reasonable
C. In addition to any general or special damages to which a
effort to settle claims with the insured or the claimant, or
both. Any insurer who breaches these duties shall be liable for claimant is entitled for breach of the imposed duty, the
claimant may be awarded penalties assessed against the
any damages sustained as a result of the breach.
insurer in an amount not to exceed two times the damages
sustained or five thousand dollars, whichever is greater.
B. Any one of the following acts, if knowingly committed or
performed by an insurer, constitutes a breach of the insurer's Such penalties, if awarded, shall not be used by the insurer in
computing either past or prospective loss experience for the
duties imposed in Subsection A:
purpose of setting rates or making rate filings.
(1) Misrepresenting pertinent facts or insurance policy
provisions relating to any coverages at issue.
(2) Failing to pay a settlement within thirty days after an
agreement is reduced to writing.
(3) Denying coverage or attempting to settle a claim on the
basis of an application which the insurer knows was altered
without notice to, or knowledge or consent of, the insured.
(4) Misleading a claimant as to the applicable prescriptive
period.
(5) Failing to pay the amount of any claim due any person
D. The provisions of this Section shall not be applicable to
claims made under health and accident insurance policies.
E. Repealed by Acts 1997, No. 949, § 2.
F. The Insurance Guaranty Association Fund, as provided in
R.S. 22:2051 et seq., shall not be liable for any special damages
awarded under the provisions of this Section.
Proving Elements of Claim
 Satisfactory proof of loss:
 Defined as information which suffices to fully apprise insurer of claim
Jones v. Johnson, 56 So. 3d 1016 (La. App. 2 Cir. 2010)
 McDill tender
McDill v. Utica Mutual Ins. Co., 475 So.2d 1085, 1089 (La. 1985)
 Necessary to show that insurer acted “arbitrary and capricious”
Arceneaux v. Amstar Corp., 969 So.2d 755 (La. App. 4 Cir. 2007)
 Arbitrary, capricious, or without probable cause
 Often used as shorthand for “bad faith”
Vaughn v. Franklin, 785 So.2d 79, 85 (La. App. 1 Cir. 2001), writ denied 798 So. 2d 969 (La. 10/5/01)
 However, this phrase really implies an abuse of power and doesn’t
necessarily imply contemptuous behavior
Steadman v. Pearl Assurance Co., 167 So. 2d 527, 531 (La. App. 4 Cir. 1964), writ denied, 168 So. 2d 822 (La. 1964).
 Many courts describe this phrase as a “vexatious” and unjustified refusal to
pay
Louisiana Bag Co., Inc. v. Audubon Indem. Co., 999 So. 2d 1104 (La. 2008)
 The failure to tender an “undisputed amount” within the time period
required by statute is, per se, arbitrary and capricious
Louisiana Bag Co., Inc. v. Audubon Indem. Co., 2008-0453 La. 12/2/08, 999 So. 2d 1104, 1114
Maloney Cinque, L.L.C. v. Pac. Ins. Co., Ltd., 2011-0787 La. App. 4 Cir. 1/25/12 (La. Ct. App. Jan. 25, 2012)
Louisiana First Party “Cat”
Claim Flowchart
Progression of MS Law
•
Benchmark case in 1977 noted “necessity of awarding punitive damages when an
insurance company refuses to pay a legitimate claim.”
Standard Life Insurance Co. v. Veal, 354 So. 2d 239 (Miss. 1977)
•
For punitive damages, must show:
• 1. The insurer lacked an arguable or legitimate basis for denying the claim,
and
• 2. The insurer committed a wilful or malicious wrong, or acted with gross and
reckless disregard for the insured's rights.
State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Grimes, 722 So. 2d 637, 641 (Miss. 1998)
• In Mississippi, an adjuster can face independent liability when his conduct
constitutes gross negligence, malice, or reckless disregard for the rights of the insured.
Bass v. California Life Ins. Co., 581 So. 2d 1087, 1090 (Miss. 1991)
• Prior, Mississippi had held that, as adjusters were not party to contract with
insured, they were not independently liable. Griffin v. Ware, 457 So. 2d 936 (Miss. 1984)
Miss. Code. Ann. § 11-1-65. Punitive damages
(1) In any action in which punitive damages are sought:
(d)The court shall determine whether the issue of
(a) Punitive damages may not be awarded if the claimant
punitive damages may be submitted to the trier of fact;
does not prove by clear and convincing evidence
and, if so, the trier of fact shall determine whether to
that the defendant against whom punitive damages
award punitive damages and in what amount.
are sought acted with actual malice, gross
negligence which evidences a willful, wanton or (e) In all cases involving an award of punitive damages,
reckless disregard for the safety of others, or
the fact finder, in determining the amount of punitive
committed actual fraud.
damages, shall consider, to the extent relevant, the
following: the defendant's financial condition and
(b)In any action in which the claimant seeks an award of
net worth; the nature and reprehensibility of the
punitive damages, the trier of fact shall first determine
defendant's wrongdoing, for example, the impact of
whether compensatory damages are to be awarded
the defendant's conduct on the plaintiff, or the
and in what amount, before addressing any issues
relationship of the defendant to the plaintiff; the
related to punitive damages.
defendant's awareness of the amount of harm being
caused and the defendant's motivation in causing
(c) If, but only if, an award of compensatory damages has
such harm; the duration of the defendant's
been made against a party, the court shall promptly
misconduct and whether the defendant attempted to
commence an evidentiary hearing to determine
conceal such misconduct; and any other
whether punitive damages may be considered by the
circumstances shown by the evidence that bear on
same trier of fact.
determining a proper amount of punitive damages.
Mississippi – what to know
- Reasons for denial – insurer is limited in defense of bad faith claim to those
reasons stated to the insureds when denying coverage
Sobley v. Southern Natural Gas Co., 210 F.3 d 561 (U.S. 5 Cir. 2000) rehearing denied
- To avoid bad faith liability, need an “arguable reason to deny coverage”
McLendon v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 521 F. Supp. 2d 561 (S.D. Miss. 2007)
- Four factors to determine amount of punitive damage award against insurers:
(1) the amount should punish the insurer and deter it from engaging in similar
actions in the future
(2) the amount should serve as a deterrent for others;
(3) the amount should account for the insurer's financial worth; and
(4) the amount should compensate the plaintiff for her public service in holding
the insurer accountable.
United American Ins. Co. v. Merrill, 978 So. 2d 613 (Miss. 2007), rehearing denied, cert denied 128 S. Ct. 1257 (U.S. 2007)
North Carolina
• Historically, courts not willing to provide tort remedies for breach of
contract
• Required “aggravation” such as fraud or malice
• Current elements to show bad faith refusal to settle a claim:
• Refusal to pay after recognition of valid claim;
• Bad Faith; and
• Aggravating or outrageous conduct.
Lovell v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 424 S. E.2d 181, 184 (N.C. 1993).
N.C.G.S.A. § 58-63-15
The following are hereby defined as unfair methods of competition and being made;
unfair and deceptive acts or practices in the business of insurance:
k. Making known to insureds or claimants a policy of appealing from
(11) Unfair Claim Settlement Practices.--Committing or performing with arbitration awards in favor of insureds or claimants for the purpose of
such frequency as to indicate a general business practice of any of the compelling them to accept settlements or compromises less than the
following: Provided, however, that no violation of this subsection shall amount awarded in arbitration;
of itself create any cause of action in favor of any person other than the l. Delaying the investigation or payment of claims by requiring an
Commissioner:
insured claimant, or the physician, of or either,1 to submit a preliminary
a. Misrepresenting pertinent facts or insurance policy provisions
claim report and then requiring the subsequent submission of formal
relating to coverages at issue;
proof-of-loss forms, both of which submissions contain substantially the
b. Failing to acknowledge and act reasonably promptly upon
same information;
communications with respect to claims arising under insurance policies; m. Failing to promptly settle claims where liability has become
c. Failing to adopt and implement reasonable standards for the prompt reasonably clear, under one portion of the insurance policy coverage in
investigation of claims arising under insurance policies;
order to influence settlements under other portions of the insurance
d. Refusing to pay claims without conducting a reasonable
policy coverage; and
investigation based upon all available information;
n. Failing to promptly provide a reasonable explanation of the basis
e. Failing to affirm or deny coverage of claims within a reasonable time in the insurance policy in relation to the facts or applicable law for
after proof-of-loss statements have been completed;
denial of a claim or for the offer of a compromise settlement.
f. Not attempting in good faith to effectuate prompt, fair and
equitable settlements of claims in which liability has become reasonably
clear;
g. Compelling the insured to institute litigation to recover amounts
due under an insurance policy by offering substantially less than the
amounts ultimately recovered in actions brought by such insured;
h. Attempting to settle a claim for less than the amount to which a
reasonable man would have believed he was entitled;
i. Attempting to settle claims on the basis of an application which was
altered without notice to, or knowledge or consent of, the insured;
j. Making claims payments to insureds or beneficiaries not accompanied
by a statement setting forth the coverage under which the payments are
Private Right of Action
 Private right of action for bad faith insurance
claim found in N.C.G.S.A. § 75-1.1
 This statute requires“unfair or deceptive trade
practices,” generally, not just in insurance aspect
 N.C.G.S. § 75-1.1 broader than Chapter 58
(N.C.G.S.A. § 58-63-15)
 Adjusters can be sued personally
 No need to show frequency – general business
practice
Gray v. North Carolina Ins. Underwriting Ass’n, 529
S.E. 2d 676 (N.C. 2000)
Texas Bad Faith
 Texas Supreme Court first recognized independent tort of bad faith by
first-party insureds in 1987
Arnold v. National County Mut. Ins. Co., 725 S.W.2d 165 (Tex. 1987)
 Insured required to show the absence of a reasonable basis for
denying or delaying payment.
Aranda v. Insurance Co. of N. Am., 748 S.W.2d 210, 213 (Tex. 1988)
 Now, standard is whether insurer knew/should have known that it was
“reasonably clear” that claim covered
Universe Life Ins. Co. v. Giles, 950 S.W.2d 48, 55-56 (Tex. 1997)
 Texas is one of very few states that bifurcate bad faith cases from its
underlying breach of contract case
Viles v. Security Nat'l Ins. Co., 788 S.W.2d 566, 567 (Tex. 1990)
Tex. Ins. Code Ann. § 541.001 et seq
§ 542.003. Unfair Claim Settlement
(4) not attempting in good faith to effect a
Practices Prohibited
prompt, fair, and equitable settlement of
(a) An insurer engaging in business in this a claim submitted in which liability has
state may not engage in an unfair claim become reasonably clear;
settlement practice.
(5) compelling a policyholder to institute a
(b) Any of the following acts by an insurer suit to recover an amount due under a policy
by offering substantially less than the amount
constitutes unfair claim settlement
ultimately recovered in a suit brought by the
practices:
policyholder;
(1) knowingly misrepresenting to a
(6) failing to maintain the information
claimant pertinent facts or policy
provisions relating to coverage at issue; required by Section 542.005; or
(2) failing to acknowledge with reasonable (7) committing another act the
commissioner determines by rule constitutes
promptness pertinent communications
relating to a claim arising under the insurer's an unfair claim settlement practice.
policy;
(3) failing to adopt and implement
reasonable standards for the prompt
investigation of claims arising under the
insurer's policies;
Texas – what to know
 Evidence that merely shows a bona fide dispute about the insurer's
liability on the contract does not rise to the level of bad faith.
National Union Fire Ins. Co. v. Dominguez, 873 S.W.2d 373, 376–77 (Tex. 1994)
 Nor is bad faith established if the evidence shows the insurer was
merely incorrect about the factual basis for its denial of the claim,
or about the proper construction of the policy.
Transp. Ins. Co. v. Moriel, 879 S.W.2d 10, 18 (Tex. 1994)
 Texas does seem to require a culpability akin to traditional bad faith.
Jones v. Ross, 173 S.W.2d 1022 (1943)
 A claims adjuster responsible for the servicing of insurance policies
can be held liable under the Texas Insurance Code for alleged Unfair and
Deceptive Trade Practices.
Gasch v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co., 491 F.3d 278, 282-83 (5th Cir. 2007)
James P. Nader
Lobman, Carnahan, Batt, Angelle, & Nader
Attorneys At Law
400 Poydras Street, Suite 2300
New Orleans, LA 70130-3425
Telephone (504) 586-9292
Facsmile (504) 586-1290
Email: [email protected]
www.lcba-law.com